2017 (3) TMI 1207 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds undervaluation charge, remands for new duty calculation based on comparable values. Appellant's challenge dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the charge of under valuation but remanded the matter for a denovo quantification of duty based on comparable value of similar ... Valuation of differential duty - quantification of differential duty based on comparable value of similar products manufactured and cleared by others - Held that: - the differential duty has been calculated based on weighted average and it is pertinent to note that the Original Authority had complied with the directions of the Tribunal and the submission made by the appellants that the present impugned order is beyond the scope of denovo direction by the Tribunal is not factually correct. No other issue was pressed during submission made by the learned Counsel for appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Proper quantification of the differential duty based on the direction of the Tribunal.2. Adoption of the value of M/s PACL instead of M/s SFFI in the denovo proceedings.3. Compliance with the Tribunal's direction for denovo quantification of duty.4. Allegation of the method adopted by the Original Authority not being legal and proper.Analysis:1. The case involves the quantification of a differential duty demand on excess amounts collected by the appellants from buyers over and above the invoice value. The Commissioner confirmed a total duty demand of &8377; 1,45,61,753/-. The Tribunal upheld the charge of under valuation but remanded the matter for a denovo quantification of duty based on comparable value of similar products manufactured by others.2. The appellant contended that the method adopted by the Original Authority in denovo proceedings was not in line with the Tribunal's direction. They argued that the Commissioner adopted the value of M/s PACL instead of M/s SFFI as directed by the Tribunal. The Original Authority cited unavailability of SFFI's invoices as the reason for this choice. The appellant sought to set aside the quantification made in the impugned order.3. The Authorized Representative argued that the reason for adopting the value of M/s PACL was clearly stated in the denovo order. When data from SFFI was unavailable, following the value of a similar product from another unit was permitted by the Tribunal. The compliance with the Tribunal's direction for denovo quantification of duty was emphasized.4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, noted that the appellants were liable for duty on the excess amounts collected. The appellants' main contention was that the quantification of the differential duty was not done properly in accordance with the Tribunal's direction. The Original Authority's decision to use the weighted average assessable value based on PACL's prices was deemed appropriate in the absence of SFFI's data. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Original Authority's findings and dismissed the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the proper quantification of the duty demand based on comparable values, the adoption of the appropriate company's value in denovo proceedings, compliance with the Tribunal's direction, and the legality of the method adopted by the Original Authority. The appeal was dismissed as the Original Authority was deemed to have followed the Tribunal's direction in calculating the differential duty accurately.